Other than PC Gamer, I can't think of a site more untrustworthy in its reviews.

PC Gamer will often hire decent freelance reviewers, which is why I read them. Also, Tom Chick, who is my personal favorite reviewer because of taste compatibility and writing style, is on their team. His review of "Dishonored" was very good - it told me everything I wanted to know about the game and made me move it to my short list of must-buy games this season.

As far as metacritic, its very setup has the inherent effect of mitigating the influence of "outlier" reviews like the gushing fanboy cheerleader pieces and the misinformed hate-on pieces like Gamespot's. One crappy review score (or inordinately gushing review) won't change the average a whole lot, so this is a non-issue to me. Used correctly, Metacritic is a valuable source of info.

Crazy enough, they (PC Gamer) gave BLOPS2 a 71 out of 100 and the latest EA piece of shit shooter a 34 or something. I was stunned to see it. I guess both companies' advertising budget was already tapped out, so PC Gamer could blast two of their games to make up for the ball-licking crap they'll give something else come March.

Other than PC Gamer, I can't think of a site more untrustworthy in its reviews.

PC Gamer will often hire decent freelance reviewers, which is why I read them. Also, Tom Chick, who is my personal favorite reviewer because of taste compatibility and writing style, is on their team. His review of "Dishonored" was very good - it told me everything I wanted to know about the game and made me move it to my short list of must-buy games this season.

As far as metacritic, its very setup has the inherent effect of mitigating the influence of "outlier" reviews like the gushing fanboy cheerleader pieces and the misinformed hate-on pieces like Gamespot's. One crappy review score (or inordinately gushing review) won't change the average a whole lot, so this is a non-issue to me. Used correctly, Metacritic is a valuable source of info.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

entr0py wrote on Nov 15, 2012, 14:10:I think the fact that Gamespot is lobbying Metacritic to change the review is evidence that they're under some inappropriate pressure from the publisher. Otherwise, merely correcting the errors on their own site would be enough for them. That is the limit of Gamespot's responsibility.

It's an indie, self-published title. Unless they have some insane level of pressure they can lever that Bethesda couldn't in order to raise Fallout: New Vegas scores...

Metacritic is the industry-standard grading system. A black mark there sticks with a developer forever, earned or not.

entr0py wrote on Nov 15, 2012, 14:10:I think the fact that Gamespot is lobbying Metacritic to change the review is evidence that they're under some inappropriate pressure from the publisher. Otherwise, merely correcting the errors on their own site would be enough for them. That is the limit of Gamespot's responsibility.

It's an indie, self-published title. Unless they have some insane level of pressure they can lever that Bethesda couldn't in order to raise Fallout: New Vegas scores...

Metacritic is the industry-standard grading system. A black mark there sticks with a developer forever, earned or not.

Metacritic lists it as an 87. I fully expect it to get 100's from big guys like IGN, the difference is that there is enough input coming in that a more accurate score prevails. I'm not a big halo fan but it looks like a well made game that is fun for the fans and entertaining for others. If it's not blazing a new trail in every respect then I'm happy it doesn't cross the 90 line.

I think that is an improvement from last year when it seemed everyone was 90+..

I remember an article released earlier this year that had an interesting point. Research showed that positive reviews didn't increase sales, but negative ones hurt sales.

Might be nothing but there was a bizarre turn of events with regard to hacking on the PC for Black Ops 2. Somebody uploaded a video clip showing a player using a hack (aimbot), was fairly obvious, and the guy was reporting it to Treyarch/Activision. A bit later the Video is taken down upon a dmca request/complaint (I think) and his youtube account was given a strike. (I assume of the 6 strike variety?)

Later this caught a lot of peoples attention and during a reddit AMA from a Black Ops 2 dev this guy asked them directly, why did you pull my video and give me a strike against my account?

The response was this:"If can be impossible for the people who are watching this know the difference between people trying to get YouTube famous from hacking videos, and those intending to help. It's a pretty thing line."

To me this sounds like: "You're going to hurt our sales talking about Aimbots so shut the fuck up or we'll punish you."

LinkIt's the top comment, and the reply is a few levels down. I think this supports your theory that bad reviews have much more effect than good ones. It's about silencing critics, not fluffing your scores in the end.

Tumbler wrote on Nov 15, 2012, 14:15:It would seem, to my eyes anyway, that the recent review site corruption dust up has scared a lot of outlets into treating games more objectively this holiday season. The biggest titles seem to be getting scores that feel more reasonable all things considered. Mid 80's is what I'd expect for games like Halo 4, AC3 and Black Ops 2. I expect them to be high quality titles but they're simply another version of an existing franchise and as such likely won't be reinventing the wheel.

The scores seem to be fair in my opinion. Xcom and Fifa 13 end up being the only 90's for the recent releases. I'm not sure I agree with Xcom getting a 90 though. I really enjoyed the game but once you beat it the game mechanics really start to annoy the crap out of me. And internal navigation (inside alien ships) is a fucking nightmare. I wonder when that dust up started... Xcom says oct 9th, looks like oct 12th was when that guy at eurogamer stepped down. So seems like xcom was under that umbrella of heavy publisher influence.

And yet, Halo 4 and its review scores seem to throw that right out the window.

Tom Chick, whether you agree with him or not, is the only review I've seen of the game that really tells the story like it actually is. I know there's the "it's just an opinion" crowd, but what he says in the review is all spot-on; it's a tired rehash of the same old Halo, and not even the recent Halo games but the 10-year old ones. It's all corridors and spawn-on you enemies mixed with short vehicle runs before they force you back off into another enemy corridor. The story is absolutely random nonsense if you haven't read the books. I loved Reach, so I picked up Halo 4 and honestly haven't been as disgusted with a game purchase in quite a while; my opinion isn't just that I dislike the game, but that is actually bad...something I think people will likely start to say after the newness of the game wears off a bit.

It's game that got 100's from some big reviewers, most notably the ones that like to sell box blurbs for retail (IGN was retaining its objectivity by giving it a mere 98, though). Its overall score on Metacritic might be in the 80's, but the usual suspects for inflated review scores are still the ones with upper 90's or 100 scores for that game.

"I’m explicit about this policy with every new publication we agree to track. It’s a critic-protection measure, instituted in 2003 after I found that many publications had been pressured to raise review scores (or de-publish reviews) to satisfy outside influences."

Reviews are deleted/modified/changed retroactively, metacritic is in the right here.

It would seem, to my eyes anyway, that the recent review site corruption dust up has scared a lot of outlets into treating games more objectively this holiday season. The biggest titles seem to be getting scores that feel more reasonable all things considered. Mid 80's is what I'd expect for games like Halo 4, AC3 and Black Ops 2. I expect them to be high quality titles but they're simply another version of an existing franchise and as such likely won't be reinventing the wheel.

The scores seem to be fair in my opinion. Xcom and Fifa 13 end up being the only 90's for the recent releases. I'm not sure I agree with Xcom getting a 90 though. I really enjoyed the game but once you beat it the game mechanics really start to annoy the crap out of me. And internal navigation (inside alien ships) is a fucking nightmare. I wonder when that dust up started... Xcom says oct 9th, looks like oct 12th was when that guy at eurogamer stepped down. So seems like xcom was under that umbrella of heavy publisher influence.

I think the fact that Gamespot is lobbying Metacritic to change the review is evidence that they're under some inappropriate pressure from the publisher. Otherwise, merely correcting the errors on their own site would be enough for them. That is the limit of Gamespot's responsibility.

Axis wrote on Nov 15, 2012, 12:44:Metacritic is 100% correct, no blame to be had for enforcing their well known policy. Its up to the publishers to do their job.

And with the state of many piss-poor idiotic nub reviewers, this is the smart thing to do on MC's part.

I'm sorry, but no. It's a common, expected practice to accept retractions for articles. What should have happened is that GameSpot would be excluded from the score entirely for that game. That solves the problem of reviewers being pressured to revise scores and is more fair to the involved third party.

As it is, I was already questioning which critics metacritic was choosing to include in scores. Some of the sites they're using have little to no integrity.

And As someone else pointed out, Metacritic was already caught applying double standards in this area when they chose to ignore a review from destructoid on a game because destructoid gave it a 10/10.

They can't have it both ways.

I personally don't own or plan to buy NS2 and have never played it, but after this fiasco, I will no longer rely at all on metacritic score. I've lost all confidence in them.

Sales and reviews don't always correlate. Michael Bay has had only one movie that scored over 60% on Metacritic, the first Transformers at 61%. Despite that his movies have always been financially successful.

Also, can we throw some blame at Metacritic please? GS admitted their mistake and issued a correction. Metacritic did not.

I don't want the type of people making purchasing decisions based on metacritic scores playing NS2 with me, so this does more good than bad. NS2 devs said they've made pretty good cash already, at least as much to support the game for a good while.